Commentaire de citation sur L’Exode 3:7

AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk;⁷⁵Further 48:15. and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac.⁷⁶Above, 32:10. Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal.⁷⁷Ibid., 12:7. And what need was there to explain it further?
However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁸94:5. When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac⁷⁹Above, 31:53. in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran.⁸⁰See Ramban above, 28:17.
Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said⁸¹Zebachim 116a. that Noachides⁸²See Note 148 in Seder Vayishlach, also Note 222 in Seder Bereshith. did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar.⁸³Above 8:20. But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim Vayikra 16:1. “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah,⁷⁸94:5. i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.”⁸⁵The case refers to a procession of a Rabbi and his pupils on the road. Since the pupils travel in advance of the Rabbi, a person coming from the opposite direction would first meet the pupils and then the Rabbi. Similarly, Isaac is the pupil and Abraham is the Rabbi. Hence Jacob offered sacrifices to the G-d of his father Isaac.
I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah:⁸⁶Sefer Habahir, 135. See Note 42 in Seder Bereshith. “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering,⁸⁷I Kings 18:38. and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.”⁸⁸Deuteronomy 4:24. Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him],⁸⁹The words in the brackets are from the Commentary of Lvush to the Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes these words of Ramban. as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.⁹⁰Micah 7:20. It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night⁹¹Verse 2 here. with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father,⁹²Verse 3 here. for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar;⁹³Above, 31:13. it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again.⁹⁴Verse 4 here.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again,⁹⁴Verse 4 here. [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down⁹⁵Exodus 19:20. as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see⁹⁶Above, 18:21. as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night,⁹¹Verse 2 here. thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.
Similarly he said⁹⁷Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard⁹⁸Above, 29:33. as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying⁹⁹Exodus 22:22. as “I will surely accept his complaint.”
But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained¹⁰⁰Moreh Nebuchim I, 65. with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”?¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. And that which the Rabbi has said¹⁰²Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai;¹⁰³Above 16:2. Hear the voice of my supplications;¹⁰⁴Psalms 28:2. Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear;¹⁰⁵Isaiah 1:15. And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁰⁶Deuteronomy 28:1. And so also, leiv shomei’ah¹⁰⁷I Kings 3:9. (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction,¹⁰⁸Above, 29:32. [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people,¹⁰⁹Exodus 3:7. [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel,¹¹⁰Ibid., 2:25. [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous¹¹¹Ramban refers here to Chapter 48 of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim mentioned above, in which Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) sets forth the theory that Onkelos always renders “seeing” literally except where it is connected with wrong, injury or violence, in which cases he expresses it as “It was manifest before the Eternal.” Onkelos is thus consistent with the prophetic phrase, Thou canst not look on iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13). However, Rambam mentions that he found three passages which contradict his theory. One is the verse, And the Eternal saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, (above, 6:5), and the other two are mentioned in the following note. In these three cases which are connected with wrong and violence, Onkelos should have expressed “seeing” in the form of “being manifest before the Eternal,” and yet he translated them literally! Rambam then concludes that our version of Onkelos is inaccurate in those three cases! It is this conclusion of Rambam with which Ramban takes issue in the text before us. in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw],¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. and two other verses,¹¹²And G-d saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt, (above, 6:12). And the Eternal saw that Leah was hated, (above, 29:31). which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory.
With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him,¹¹³Exodus 34:6. as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned.¹¹⁴Moreh Nebuchim I, 21. But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee?¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 31:3. In our version of Onkelos, the text reads, “His word will go over.” Ramban’s objection is thus removed. This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative¹¹⁶As opposed to “the visions of the night.” See the beginning of the section where Ramban explains this distinction which Rambam makes. and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d.¹¹⁸Ibid., 31:18. The Rabbi’s answer¹¹⁹Moreh Nebuchim I, 66. that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them,¹²⁰Deuteronomy 33:2. in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand¹²¹Exodus 15:12. as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy;¹²²Ibid., Verse 6. Thy strong hand;¹²³Deuteronomy 3:24. By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm;¹²⁴Ibid., 4:34. And My hand take hold on judgment;¹²⁵Ibid., 32:41. The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it.¹²⁶Ibid., 11:12. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him],¹²⁷Above, 28:12-13. as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream.¹²⁸Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon’s thesis is that the reason Onkelos did not paraphrase the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, but translated it literally, is that the narrative begins with a statement that it was in a vision of the night. Ramban questions this thesis, for in the story of the ladder, which is also introduced as a dream, Onkelos avoided possible indications of corporeality, and accordingly he paraphrased the verses. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee,¹²⁹Above, 28:15. as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth,¹³⁰Exodus 4:12. [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee,¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night,¹³²Above, 20:3. And G-d came to Laban in a dream,¹³³Ibid., 31:24. as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. and yet Jonathan ben Uziel¹³⁵See Note 152 in Seder Noach. translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream,¹³⁶Above, 41:22. is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest.¹³⁷Daniel 2:31.
And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal,¹³⁸Exodus 16:8. as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses¹³⁹Numbers 21:5. as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you,¹⁴⁰Above, 9:12. and Between G-d and every living creature,¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 16. were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch¹⁴²Ibid., 31:49. as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 50. as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d,¹⁴⁴Ibid., 21:23. is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah].
Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said¹⁴⁵Moreh Nebuchim I, 28. that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand,¹⁴⁶Zechariah 14:4. as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock.¹⁴⁷Exodus 17:6.
And concerning that which the Rabbi has said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation,¹⁴⁹Numbers 16:19. as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down,¹⁵⁰Exodus 19:20. “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.”¹⁵¹Onkelos, ibid., 3:2. Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face,¹⁵²Above, 32:31. as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not,¹⁵³Exodus 33:15. as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee,¹⁵⁴Ibid., 32:34. and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken,¹⁵⁵Ibid., 33:17. Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us,¹⁵⁶Ibid., 34:9. and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.”¹⁵⁷We thus see that even here, where it is clear from the context that the verse refers to G-d and not an angel, Onkelos does not hesitate to translate “going” literally. He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face,¹⁵⁸Ibid., 33:20. “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,]¹⁵⁹Ezekiel 3:12. Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,¹⁶⁰Exodus 33:18. which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted,¹⁶¹Moreh Nebuchim I, 54 and 64. then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle,¹⁶²Exodus 40:35. Moreh Nebuchim I, 64. and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala¹⁶³See Note 56 in Introduction to Sefer Bereshith. known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention¹⁶⁴See Ramban on Exodus 20:19. this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying,¹⁶⁵Ibid., 20:1. [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 5:4. unto your whole assembly.¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 19. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.
However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶⁸Mechilta Shirah 3. See also Megillah 29a. “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.”¹⁶⁹Jeremiah 49:38. Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.],¹⁷⁰Verse 3 here. and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],”¹²⁹Above, 28:15. because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him.¹⁷¹28:13. Since the Tetragrammaton (“the Eternal”) represents the attribute of mercy, had Onkelos literally translated Verse 15, “and, behold, I am with thee,” it would have indicated that this attribute would follow Jacob into exile since at the outset of this matter in Verse 13, Scripture uses the Tetragrammaton. Hence Onkelos translated Verse 15 as, ‘and My word will be in thy help,’ which is a reference to the attribute of judgment. (Bei’ur Ha’lvush to Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes the words of Ramban.) The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses.¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.

MAKE US A GOD WHO ‘YEILCHU’ (SHALL GO — in the plural) BEFORE US. “They wished to have many gods. FOR THIS MOSES, THE MAN THAT BROUGHT US UP OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, and used to show us the way we were to go, WE KNOW NOT WHAT IT BECOME OF HIM. Now we need many gods which shall go before us.” This is Rashi’s language.
But his language does not fit [the verse, since Scripture indicates only that they wanted a leader in place of Moses, but not gods]. Rather, this verse is the key to understand the incident of the golden calf, and the thought of those who made it. For it is known that the Israelites did not think that Moses was a god, and that he did for them the signs and wonders through his own power. So what sense is there in their saying, “since Moses is gone from us, we will make ourselves gods?” Moreover, they clearly said, make us, ‘elohim’ who shall go before us — and not a deity who should give them life in this world or in the World to Come. Instead, they wanted another Moses, saying: “Moses, the man who showed us the way from Egypt until now,²⁵⁶Numbers 14:19. being in charge of the journeyings at the commandment of the Eternal by the hand of Moses,²⁵⁷Ibid., 9:23. he is now lost to us; let us make ourselves another Moses who will show us the way at the commandment of the Eternal by his hand.” This is the reason for their mentioning, Moses, the man that brought us up, rather than saying “the G-d who brought them up,” for they needed a man of G-d.²⁵⁸Deuteronomy 33:1. You can also understand this matter from Aaron’s answer to Moses our Teacher, when he asked him, What did this people do unto thee, that thou hast brought a great sin upon them,²⁵⁹Further, Verse 21. to which Aaron replied, And they said unto me: Make us a god etc. And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let him break it off; so they gave it to me; and I cast it into the fire.²⁶⁰Ibid., Verses 23-24. Now Aaron was apologizing to Moses and saying to him, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot,²⁶¹Ibid., Verse 22. and yet here he was speaking as if adding rebellion unto his sin,²⁶²Job 34:37. saying that they asked of him an idol and he made it for them with his hands! So why should Moses’ anger not burn against him! What greater sin than this is there?
But the matter is as I have stated, that they did not want the calf to be for them in place of a god who killeth and maketh alive,²⁶³I Samuel 2:6. whom they would take upon themselves to serve as a deity; instead, they wanted to have someone in place of Moses to show them the way. And this was the apology of Aaron. He argued that “they merely told me that I should make them elohim who would go before them in your place, my lord, because they did not know what had happened to you and whether you would return or not. Therefore they needed someone who would show them the way as long as you were not with them, and if perchance you would return they would leave him and follow you as before.” And so indeed it happened, for as soon as the people saw Moses, they immediately left the calf and rejected it, and they allowed him to burn it and scatter its powder upon the water,²⁶⁴Further, Verse 20. and no one quarrelled with him at all. Similarly you will note that he did not rebuke the people nor say anything to them, and yet when he came into the camp and he saw the calf and the dancing,²⁶⁵Verse 19. they immediately fled from before him; and he took the calf and burnt it [and scattered its powder upon the water] and made them drink of it, and yet they did not protest at all. But if the calf were to them in place of a god, it is surely not normal that a person should let his king and god be burnt in fire. Lo, if one burn their abominations before their eyes, would they not stone him?²⁶⁶See above, 8:22. Now it was Aaron who brought forth this shape, for they did not tell him what he should make, whether a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat,²⁶⁷Leviticus 22:27. or other forms. It is this which is the intention of the saying of the Sages who said,²⁶⁸Sanhedrin 63a. “The verse teaches us that they wished to have many gods,” For they did not know what to choose and which one would be best for them.
Now Aaron’s intention was as follows. Because Israel was in a wilderness, a desolate wasteland, and destruction and everlasting desolation come from the north, as it is written, Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land,²⁶⁹Jeremiah 1:14. the reference being not merely to the king of Babylon, as can be seen clearly from Scripture,²⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 15: For, lo, I will call all the families of the kingdoms of the north etc. but rather [the intent of the verse is to state] that the attribute of justice comes to the world from the left,²⁷¹As one faces the east, his left hand is to the north. to requite upon all the inhabitants of the land according to their evil; and since in the account of the Divine Chariot it is said, and the four of them had the face of an ox on the left side²⁷²Ezekiel 1:10. — therefore Aaron thought that the destroyer [the ox, which was to the left, i.e. the north] points to the place of destruction where its great power is centered, and when worshipping G-d through there the spirit will be poured from on high,²⁷³Isaiah 32:15. just as it was put upon Moses. It is for this reason that Aaron said, Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Eternal,²⁷⁴Verse 5. meaning that the services and the sacrifices would be to the Proper Name of G-d in order to obtain His favor upon the power [symbolized by] this image,²⁷⁵I.e., “the ox” which is on the left side of the Divine Chariot, and denotes the attribute of justice. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 507. for, it being before them, they would direct their thoughts towards the purport thereof [and thus would be able to mitigate the destructive forces of the wilderness].
It is our Rabbis who have taught us this interpretation, and it is they who have revealed the secret thereof. Thus they have said:²⁷⁶Ramban is quoting here a composite of Midrashim in Shemoth Rabbah — 3:2, 42:5, 43:8. “‘Ra’oh ra’ithi’ (I have surely seen) the affliction of My people.²⁷⁷Exodus 3:7. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: ‘Moses, you see them in one appearance, and I see them in two appearances.²⁷⁸Hence the double expression: Ra’oh ra’ithi, translated “I have surely seen.” You see them coming to Sinai and accepting My Torah, and I see them contemplating Me and how I came forth in My ‘travelling coach’ to give them the Torah, as it is said, The chariots of G-d are myriads, even thousands upon thousands,²⁷⁹Psalms 68:18. This whole psalm is interpreted in Midrash Tehilim with reference to the Revelation on Sinai. and they will unhitch one of My tatromulin,²⁸⁰This is a Greek word [as Ramban will explain further on] which denotes “four mules.” Here it is used in reference to the four chayoth (living creatures) in the Divine Chariot as described by Ezekiel (Chapter 1), which, as stated in Psalms quoted above, were also seen at the Revelation on Sinai. The sense here is thus that “they will unhitch one of the four chayoth (creatures) in My Chariot, and worship it.” of which it is written, and the face of an ox on the left side,²⁷²Ezekiel 1:10. and bring Me to anger with it.’” Tatromulin means “four mules,” for tetra in Greek means “four,” just as the Rabbis have said,²⁸¹Nazir 8b. [“If a person vowed, ‘I will be a Nazir] tetragon,’ he becomes [a Nazir for a period of] four times;” mulin means “mules,” just as in the expression, “The mula’oth (mules) of Rabbi’s house²⁸²Shabbath 52a. [used to go out with their bits on the Sabbath].” The word tatromulin is thus used as a symbol of the four chayoth (living creatures) who carried the Divine Chariot.²⁸³Ezekiel 1:5. And in Vayikra Rabbah [10:3] [we find the Midrash stating] that Aaron said, “Since I am building the altar, I will build it to the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Eternal.’²⁷⁴Verse 5. It is not written here, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the calf,’ but to the Eternal.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that elohim in this case [Arise, make us ‘elohim’] means that Aaron should make them “something visible and corporeal on which the glory would rest. And if you will pay attention to the first journey,²⁸⁴Above, 14:19. And the angel of G-d, who went before the camp of Israel etc. (Bachya). you will understand this.” But this does not appear to me to be correct, since the calf was not made according to the manner of those proficient in the art of the constellations, so that the glory or some spiritual influence should dwell upon it; rather, the figure was made so that when the people would worship it they would direct their thoughts to the purport thereof [as explained above]. Now I have already explained²⁸⁵Above, 13:21. the secret of the first journey, and far it be from Aaron that he should want to be likened to him. Instead, his desire was merely to take of [the tatromulin, as explained above] so that their journeys [in the wilderness] should be on the side of that attribute. The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand.

עזי וזמרת כה, "The Lord is my strength and song." The normal procedure when one composes a song for G'd, praises Him or prays to Him, is to mention first how G'd relates to oneself before mentioning how G'd related to one's ancestors. Thus we find that the men of the Great Assembly who edited our major prayers began the עמידה by first referring to G'd as "our G'd," i.e. the G'd of the petitioner and only afterwards did they define G'd as also the G'd of the patriarchs. The Israelites were similarly motivated when they first referred to what G'd meant to them (each individual Jew), how G'd had proven a Saviour for them in their present situation acting as the merciful G'd (tetragram). They concluded the statement referring to their personal relationship with G'd by saying זה אלי ואנוהו, "this is my G'd and I will glorify Him," and only afterwards did they describe the same G'd in His capacity as the G'd of their fathers. Our sages copied this pattern when they formulated our prayers where we say אלוקינו ואלוקי אבותינו, "our G'd who was already the G'd of our ancestors." I have already explained why the Israelites in this instance chose to describe G'd in the singular as "my G'd" instead of as "our G'd."

Before Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh when they need Your salvation. Although they are wicked and undeserving, arouse Your might for them. But why? Because it is for You to save us. It is fitting for You and it is incumbent upon You to save, whether guilty or innocent, as it was said to Moses in Egypt (Exod. 3:7): “I have seen the affliction of My people.” Why is the word for seeing repeated? I see that they are destined to provoke Me. Nevertheless, I have seen their affliction, because of the oath that I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.